Objectivism 101

Lesson 5: Living in Society

The ethics of emergencies

Our final subject on societal ethics is emergencies. This subject is discussed in Rand's book Virtue of Selfishness, in the section "The Ethics of Emergencies", if you have that book. But it is not necessary to follow.

An emergency is a situation where :

1. One's survival is impossible or extremely risky. Some examples are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, fires, a shipwreck.
2. The event is non-chosen and unexpected.
3. The event takes place within a short timeframe.

If these three conditions are united in the same context, then we are in presence of an emergency. Usually the context of an emergency is brought up with other people involved in the emergency, or people who could save them. Questions such as : "would you rescue a person about to drown in a terrible flood ?".

There is no inherent ethical difference between an emergency and any other situation, except that it violently blends individual values and social values.
Both the social principles we have seen in this lesson, and the individual values we have seen in the previous lesson become important :

* The fact that survival is threatened implies that the individual must ensure his survival first and foremost.
* If other people are involved (either as potential saviour or as fellow victims), the principles we have seen apply, especially benevolence.

These two principles may seem contradictory in an emergency, but this is not the case. Insofar as man's volitional life is threatened by an action, he should not do it : but if by helping others he does not infringe this rule, then he should do it.
Rand explains this in her solution to emergencies :

It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if its is in one's power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save.

Now, emergencies are not "normal" situations. We do not live our life going from emergency to emergency, unless one lives in a third-world country ravaged by war. Our daily lives are more stable than that. While emergencies are a good ethical exercise, they are not a standard of morality.

So why are emergencies important at all ? As Rand mentions :

Observe that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men's normal existence and that they always offer 'lifeboat' situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. ('What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one?' etc.) The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats-and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one's metaphysics.

Because emergencies make personal interest and societal principles seem contradictory, they are a perfect tool for altruists to attempt to justify themselves. But as we have seen, this is a misinterpretation of the hierarchical nature of values. The prime value is volitional life. No context can change this.

It always amuses me when I debate opponents of Objectivism and they invoke emergencies as an argument.

Here is one example I have seriously been given as disproving Objectivist ethics.
Suppose that fifty Objectivists are trapped in a building by a mass murderer, with no means of escaping within a reasonable timeframe. The murderer will blow up the building unless ten Objectivists kill him, but these ten will also be killed in the fight. The Objectivists are fully aware of these facts.

According to the person I was talking to, Objectivist ethics fail in this case, because no one will desire to go and kill the murderer. Thus all fifty will be blown up.

There are a number of problems with this situation :

1. Even for an emergency situation, it is grossly unrealistic on many levels. It is difficult to imagine how any moral lesson can be derived from such an invention.

2. To say that "Objectivist ethics fail in this case" implies that there is a "valid judgment". But how does one make this "valid judgment" without some form of ethics, either Objectivist or otherwise ? It is a circular argument.

3. The evaluation pinned to Objectivist ethics is false. Since inaction necessarily entails death, the choice to lead an assault against the murderer is neutral, not negative. Objectivist ethics does not dictate that we do nothing, simply that whatever decision we take, it will have no moral repercussions.

For a laugh or two, I invite you to consult a parody of unrealistic dilemmas at Can Bad Men Make Good Brains Do Bad Things ?

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7